linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also on PowerPC and ARM)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56BE00E7.1010303@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:57:27 +0100
From:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] random kernel crashes after THP rework on s390 (maybe also
 on PowerPC and ARM)

On 02/12/2016 04:41 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 08:57:02PM +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:09:42 +0200
>> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 07:22:23PM +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Sebastian Ott reported random kernel crashes beginning with v4.5-rc1 and
>>>> he also bisected this to commit 61f5d698 "mm: re-enable THP". Further
>>>> review of the THP rework patches, which cannot be bisected, revealed
>>>> commit fecffad "s390, thp: remove infrastructure for handling splitting PMDs"
>>>> (and also similar commits for other archs).
>>>>
>>>> This commit removes the THP splitting bit and also the architecture
>>>> implementation of pmdp_splitting_flush(), which took care of the IPI for
>>>> fast_gup serialization. The commit message says
>>>>
>>>>     pmdp_splitting_flush() is not needed too: on splitting PMD we will do
>>>>     pmdp_clear_flush() + set_pte_at().  pmdp_clear_flush() will do IPI as
>>>>     needed for fast_gup
>>>>
>>>> The assumption that a TLB flush will also produce an IPI is wrong on s390,
>>>> and maybe also on other architectures, and I thought that this was actually
>>>> the main reason for having an arch-specific pmdp_splitting_flush().
>>>>
>>>> At least PowerPC and ARM also had an individual implementation of
>>>> pmdp_splitting_flush() that used kick_all_cpus_sync() instead of a TLB
>>>> flush to send the IPI, and those were also removed. Putting the arch
>>>> maintainers and mailing lists on cc to verify.
>>>>
>>>> On s390 this will break the IPI serialization against fast_gup, which
>>>> would certainly explain the random kernel crashes, please revert or fix
>>>> the pmdp_splitting_flush() removal.
>>>
>>> Sorry for that.
>>>
>>> I believe, the problem was already addressed for PowerPC:
>>>
>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/g/454980831-16631-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
>>>
>>> I think kick_all_cpus_sync() in arch-specific pmdp_invalidate() would do
>>> the trick, right?
>>
>> Hmm, not sure about that. After pmdp_invalidate(), a pmd_none() check in
>> fast_gup will still return false, because the pmd is not empty (at least
>> on s390). So I don't see spontaneously how it will help fast_gup to break
>> out to the slow path in case of THP splitting.
> 
> What pmdp_flush_direct() does in pmdp_invalidate()? It's hard to unwrap for me :-/
> Does it make the pmd !pmd_present()?

It uses the idte instruction, which in an atomic fashion flushes the associated
TLB entry and changes the value of the pmd entry to invalid. This comes from the
HW requirement to not  change a PTE/PMD that might be still in use, other than 
with special instructions that does the tlb handling and the invalidation together.

(It also does some some other magic to the attach_count, which might hold off
finish_arch_post_lock_switch while some flushing is happening, but this should
be unrelated here)


> I'm also confused by pmd_none() is equal to !pmd_present() on s390. Hm?

Don't know, Gerald or Martin?